That doesn’t make sense. Because if they’re all interested in monopoly pricing, all consumers will flock to the largest monopoly. All it would take is for 2 of them to cooperate and that’ll blow the rest out of the water.

I’m sure there is some kind of restriction.

And again, in ANY case, if the cell phone companies themselves don’t seek interconnectivity, why should someone in government FORCE it? I differ on your fundamental assumption that the government or for that matter any layman knows the business better than the businessmen themselves.

Self-regulation or cooperation is the right kind of regulation. In the Somali example, I wonder why the different cell phone didn’t interconnect, against their own commercial interest! I’m pretty sure too, there are strong political reasons why that happened and not commercial reasons.

When so many technologies have evolved without (and in spite of) any government’s interfernce (bluetooth etc), why on earth do we need a government official telling us what to do or not?

Who needs regulation, when we can cooperate & make ’standards’?

I know why, all those socialists start screaming ‘collusion’, that’s why!

I think those of us who grew up in India under the socialist Raj have an instinctive dislike of regulation of any sort. However, for capitalism to work optimally, regulation is absolutely necessary. Adam Smith knew this and talked about it. I did my own research on the impact of mobile phones on rural markets in India (and elsewhere), and while the phones have had some impact on the poor, it could do a *great* deal more if the institutional mechanisms were stronger at the lower end of the income spectrum. Trust me, the brutality of unregulated, Darwinian capitalism that you see in rural India will lead you to very quickly question your assumptions about regulation and the need for it.

As for the question of how much regulation is required, that’s very tricky since it’s a very subjective measure. All I can say is that regulation ought to be enabling in nature, i.e. it enables capitalism to function properly.

I’m very curious why people think someone without sufficient incentive to benefit the poorer sections of society (i.e. government official) would endeavor to do something for those ‘fallen behind’ more than a private party.

IMHO the biggest false notion we have is that socialism helps the poor. Capitalism is probably the most efficient equalizer in society.

Regulation seems to be a taboo world in the current media forms - be it the heavily liberatarian-leaning blogs, or the equally libertarian b-school graduates or the tabloids. I, once again, stress that regulation does not mean a government that interferes and regressively holds back attempts to progress. Also, regulations to check monopolies or the lack thereof are not the ones I am advocating. A government’s job, ultimately, is to lend a voice to the ones who cannot be heard, unlike each one of us commenting here from our plush seats. And that is what the government should do. Whenever any entity is crossing the ethical line or the humanitarian line, that is where it should step in. Please do not say that corporations, by themselves, are morally and ethically aligned to provide the best for the society. For every Gates Foundation there is an Enron or a Worldcom. I would, in fact, use the term positive interference than regulation to define what I am saying.

Anyway, the point about balance is that it’s a dynamic thing: I can’t say where to draw the line. I don’t expect us to solve the problems of any economy for all time. There will always be new problems. We have to decide where to draw the line using our best judgement. That’s what deliberative democracy is for. I’m afraid that there are no easy answers, no simple solutions.

Unfettered capitalism (as if it existed anywhere) is guaranteed to overwhelmingly favour those who start off rich and well-connected. That’s just the way of it. There was a reason that Europe and the US introduced worker protections and redistributive measures: the free market was creating unacceptable conditions for the masses. If you value fairness and democracy you must ensure that the market serves the interests of society. It is a good servant but a very poor master. If, on the other hand, you are simply interested in justifying selfishness as a virtue, then you can believe in the myth of the invisible hand.